Ummmm not unless we add a list for Wikipedia/men...but then we might get more lists of classifications than we need! Besides, It's kind of fun watching people figure out that I'm a person of the gyno-persuasion!
JHK --- wikipedia-l-request@nupedia.com wrote:
Send Wikipedia-l mailing list submissions to wikipedia-l@nupedia.com
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to wikipedia-l-request@nupedia.com
You can reach the person managing the list at wikipedia-l-admin@nupedia.com
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Wikipedia-l digest..."
Today's Topics:
- Re: Re: Incorrect HTML encoding--something
new? (lcrocker@nupedia.com) 2. More female Wikipedians (sgilbert@nbnet.nb.ca) 3. Press release tomorrow: Wikipedia Day! (Larry Sanger) 4. Re: More female Wikipedians (Simon Kissane) 5. Re: Re: wiki source cvs (David Merrill)
--__--__--
Message: 1 Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 13:35:17 -0800 From: lcrocker@nupedia.com To: wikipedia-l@nupedia.com Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Incorrect HTML encoding--something new? Reply-To: wikipedia-l@nupedia.com
This is a multi-part message in MIME format...
------------=_1011044117-15411-0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary
The way theyare now (HTML4 Trans., ISO-8859-1) is great. In the future we can tweak the sotware if we need to generate something else, since the data is unambiguous.
I have no _particular_ opinions. All I want is for
our pages to work
in all browsers. What should I do?
0 ------------=_1011044117-15411-0--
--__--__--
Message: 2 From: sgilbert@nbnet.nb.ca To: wikipedia-l@nupedia.com Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 19:13:20 -0400 Subject: [Wikipedia-l] More female Wikipedians Reply-To: wikipedia-l@nupedia.com
PS- Are there no other women taking part in
this? I feel a bit like I've
snuck into the boys room. ;)
:-) Ruth Ifcher is around (RoseParks on
wikipedia) and Janet Davis
writes a lot on the Wikipedia. I'm not sure if
they are on the
mailing list, though. Oh, and there's also
PinkUnicorn.
Let's not forget JHK, --April, and Dreamyshade, to
name three of the more
hard-working females. There are quite a few
others, too. Wikipedia is
definitely male-dominated, though, which I agree
is regrettable.
Larry
There's also Claudine Chionh, H. Jonat and BF, since we're counting. :)
- Stephen Gilbert
--__--__--
Message: 3 Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 22:34:09 -0800 (PST) From: Larry Sanger lsanger@nupedia.com To: wikipedia-l@nupedia.com Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Press release tomorrow: Wikipedia Day! Reply-To: wikipedia-l@nupedia.com
Hi all,
If all goes according to plan, the press release should come out tomorrow, which is "Wikipedia Day" (our first anniversary). This might or might not bring in lots of traffic. Be ready, Militia members! Get into a welcoming mood, Welcoming Committee members! :-)
Larry
--__--__--
Message: 4 Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 22:29:29 -0800 (PST) From: Simon Kissane sj_kissane@yahoo.com Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] More female Wikipedians To: wikipedia-l@nupedia.com Reply-To: wikipedia-l@nupedia.com
--- sgilbert@nbnet.nb.ca wrote: [snip]
There's also Claudine Chionh, H. Jonat and BF,
since
we're counting. :)
Maybe it's time for [[Wikipedians/Female]]? :)
- Stephen Gilbert
Simon J Kissane
Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/
--__--__--
Message: 5 Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 08:58:26 -0500 From: David Merrill david@lupercalia.net To: wikipedia-l@nupedia.com Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Re: wiki source cvs Reply-To: wikipedia-l@nupedia.com
On Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 04:50:53PM +0100, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
Larry Sanger lsanger@nupedia.com writes:
This, by the way, would be a great feature for
Wikipedia to be able to
use; we'd certainly like Wikipedia articles to
be convertable to DocBook
XML format. That's what we decided we wanted to
use as an XML DTD for
Nupedia, and surely we'd want to use it for
Wikipedia too.
I'm not convinced that DocBook is the best DTD for
this kind of
content. I like it very much for
(computer-oriented) technical
documentation, but for a more general topic? When
used to its full
extent DB is also quite baroque, and most of it
probably wouldn't be
used (for example the GUISUBMENU element <g>).
Take a look at
URL:http://www.docbook.org/tdg/en/html/part2.html to get an overview
of DocBook elements.
A simpler, encylopedia-specific DTD may be better.
On the other hand,
I don't know of any off-the-shelf DTD that fits
this description, and
a DocBook-subset may be better supported by other
software than any
DTD that's just used by Nupedia (and maybe
Wikipedia).
I agree that any complete-ish implementation of DocBook would be very hard and frought with difficulty. However, being about to export into basic docbook (meaning not much more than links, sections, and <para> tags) would allow the content to be worked into DocBook based publication systems and such, and also the generation of pdf, postscript, and other outputs. And *that* much at least would be fairly easy and worth doing imho.
-- David C. Merrill http://www.lupercalia.net
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/